APHC010208632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. AVADARI SUBBARAO, S/O.PERAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O.KELLAMPALLI VILLAGE MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 1. VANKAYALAPATI RATHANAMMA, W/O.LATE VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED 73 YEARS, R/O. PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI PANCHAYAT, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. VANKAYALAPATI VENKAIAH, S/O.LATE VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O.PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI PANCHAYAT, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. KANDIMALLA SESHAMMA, W PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI PANCHAYAT, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. KANDIMALLA VENKAMMA, W/O LATE SRINIVASARAO AGED 43 YEARS, R/O PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI PANCHAYAT PRAKASAM DISTRICT 5. AMARA CHINNAMA R/O PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI PANCHAYAT, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2175/2025 AVADARI SUBBARAO, S/O.PERAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O.KELLAMPALLI VILLAGE MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM ...PETITIONER AND VANKAYALAPATI RATHANAMMA, W/O.LATE VENKATA SUBBAIAH, 73 YEARS, R/O. PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI PANCHAYAT, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. VANKAYALAPATI VENKAIAH, S/O.LATE VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O.PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI PANCHAYAT, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. KANDIMALLA SESHAMMA, W/O.SUBBARAO, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI PANCHAYAT, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. KANDIMALLA VENKAMMA, W/O LATE SRINIVASARAO AGED 43 YEARS, R/O PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI PANCHAYAT PRAKASAM DISTRICT AMARA CHINNAMAMAI, W/O.VENKATESWARLU, AGED 73 YEARS, R/O PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI PANCHAYAT, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI AVADARI SUBBARAO, S/O.PERAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O.KELLAMPALLI VILLAGE MARRIPUDI MANDAL, PRAKASAM ...PETITIONER VANKAYALAPATI RATHANAMMA, W/O.LATE VENKATA SUBBAIAH, 73 YEARS, R/O. PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI VANKAYALAPATI VENKAIAH, S/O.LATE VENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O.PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI /O.SUBBARAO, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI PANCHAYAT, KANDIMALLA VENKAMMA, W/O LATE SRINIVASARAO AGED 43 YEARS, R/O PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI MAI, W/O.VENKATESWARLU, AGED 73 YEARS, R/O PINNIKAVERIPALLI VILLAGE, KELLAMPALLI PANCHAYAT, ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 26-03-2025 passed in I. A No 92/2025 in OS.No.06/2021 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the court below to send the promissory note to Indian Security Press, Nasik and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 120 days in representing the present C.R.P.S.R. and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of order dated 26.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.92 of 2025 in O.S.No.06 of 2021 on the file on the file of the Senior Civil judge, Darsi and pass such IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in OS. No 06/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil judge, Darsi pending disposal of this Civil revision petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MEDIKONDA PRANAY VENKAT CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANJANEYA SARMA.M 3 The Court made the following order: Assailing the correctness and legality of the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi in Interlocutory Application No.92 of 2025 in Original Suit No.06 of 2021, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner herein is plaintiff and respondents herein are defendants in O.S.06 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Darsi. 3. The petitioner herein/plaintiff filed O.S.No.06 of 2021 for recovery of money based on a promissory note, dated 27.12.2017. At the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.92 of 2025, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 CPC, duly praying the Court to send Ex.A1-promissory note to the Indian Security Press, Nasik for its opinion regarding the year of manufacture of the revenue stamp affixed on the promissory note. The said application was filed on the ground that the respondents herein/defendants took a stand in their written statement that the promissory note is a materially altered one and that the year ‘2007’ was altered to ‘2017’ by altering the digit ‘0’ before ‘7’ as ‘1’. According to the plaintiff, the promissory note was executed in the year 2017. If Ex.A1 is sent to Indian Security Press for its opinion regarding the year of manufacture of the revenue stamp affixed on the said promissory note, it would be helpful for arriving at a just conclusion. 4 ii) The said application was opposed by the respondents/defendants denying the allegations and inter alia contending that earlier the respondents herein/defendants filed I.A.No.181 of 2014 seeking to send the promissory note for hand writing expert and the said application was allowed and Ex.A1 promissory note was sent to the hand writing expert at Truth Labs, Hyderabad and an expert report was received opining that the date column at the top of Ex.A1 promissory note was altered by inserting the numerical ‘1’ after erasing ‘0’ before ‘7’, thereby altering the year from 2007 to 2017. It is further contended that both sides have already adduced ample evidence, which is sufficient to decide the dispute between the parties and that even if Ex.A1 is sent to the Indian Security Press, Nasik for determining the year of manufacture of the revenue stamp, no useful purpose will be served, as sufficient evidence is already available on record. iii) Upon hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory application on the ground that both parties had already adduced ample evidence in support of their respective cases and that the relief sought in the present petition was not necessary for deciding the dispute between the parties. The Trial Court further observed that the application was filed at the fag end, which supports the contention of the respondents’ counsel that the present petition was filed by the petitioner with a mala fide intention only to delay and drag on the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 5 4. Heard Sri M.Pranay Venkat Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel, representing Sri M.Anjaneya Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and the contents of the affidavit filed in support of Interlocutory Application, contended that the defendants have taken a categorical stand in their written statement and in the evidence that the suit promissory note is a materially altered one and that the promissory note pertains to the year 2007, which was subsequently altered as 2017. He further contended that the revenue stamp affixed on the promissory note is also of the year 2007 and that if the same is identified as having been manufactured in the year 2017, the stand of the respondents could be negatived. He further contended that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the said document is sent for the purpose of determining the year of manufacture of the revenue stamp. Hence, prayed to allow the present Civil Revision Petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit of respondent No.2, contended that the petitioner filed the Interlocutory application on 05.02.2025 by suppressing the fact that as on that date there is an expert opinion dated 25.04.2024 received by the Court below that Ex.A1-Promissory note was materially altered and the said fact was nowhere stated in the affidavit, is nothing but misleading the Court below to obtain some favourable orders. 6 The petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing the expert opinion. He further contended that the said application was filed only to drag on the suit, that too when the matter was posted for arguments. He further contended that no valid grounds have been raised warranting interference by this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. The material on record shows that the suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for recovery of money based on a promissory note dated 27.12.2017. The specific defence taken by the respondents/defendants in their written statement as well as during the course of evidence is that the suit promissory note is a materially altered document and that the year mentioned therein was originally ‘2007’, which was subsequently altered as ‘2017’ by inserting the digit ‘1’ after erasing ‘0’ before ‘7’. 9. In view of the said defence taken by the respondents/defendants, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No.92 of 2025 seeking to send Ex.A1-promissory note to the Indian Security Press, Nasik, for expert opinion regarding the year of manufacture of the revenue stamp affixed on the said promissory note. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, if the year of manufacture of the revenue stamp is determined, it would have a direct bearing on the controversy 7 involved in the suit and would also assist the Court in arriving at a just conclusion. 10. It is not in dispute that earlier the document was sent to a handwriting expert at Truth Labs, Hyderabad, and an expert opinion was obtained to the effect that the date column on the promissory note was altered. However, the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff is not with regard to the handwriting or alteration of the digits, but with regard to the determination of the year of manufacture of the revenue stamp affixed on Ex.A1. The trial Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the matter was at the stage of arguments and that ample evidence had already been adduced by both sides. Merely because the application was filed at a belated stage, the same cannot be a ground to reject the request. Further, sending the document to the Indian Security Press, Nasik, for the limited purpose of determining the year of manufacture of the revenue stamp would not cause any prejudice to the respondents/defendants. The opinion so obtained may either support or disprove the stand taken by the parties and also would help the Court in deciding the dispute between the parties. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the reason assigned by the trial Court in dismissing the application is not sustainable and warrants interference. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 26.03.2025 passed in I.A. No.92 of 2025 in O.S. No.06 of 2021 on 8 the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi. Consequently, I.A. No.92 of 2025 stands allowed and the trial Court is directed to take necessary steps for sending Ex.A1-promissory note to the Indian Security Press, Nasik, for obtaining its opinion regarding the year of manufacture of the revenue stamp affixed thereon and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the opinion is received at the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 05.03.2026 MP 9 214 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2175 of 2025 Date: 05.03.2026 MP